CodexAI

par KI

Workspace

Toutes les décisions2.7M+Récentes

Judiciaires

Cour de CassationCour d'AppelTribunal JudiciaireTrib. de Commerce

Administratives

Conseil d'ÉtatCour Admin. d'AppelTrib. Administratif

Codes de loi

Code civilCode du travailCode de commerceCode pénalCode procédure civileCGICode sécu. socialeCode de l'urbanismeCode de l'enviro.Code monétaire fin.

Droit social

Prud'hommes19KConventions coll.26KDoctrine fiscale14K

IA & Outils

IA JuridiqueNEWVeille hebdoNEWMCP ServerAPICitationsStatistiquesAlertes
ConnexionS'inscrire

CodexAI

RechercheJurisprudenceCodesCitationsStatistiquesAlertes
Juridiction
Tri
DeÀ
Avocat
Opérateurs : AND · OR · NOT · "…"
RechercheDécisionsCodesCPHAlertes
Exporter CSV

2 899 résultats pour « Merrily ADRASSE »

TousCCCETACAACACPHTJTCOMCJUEPrud'h.Conv. coll.BOFIP IA

DÉCISION / ECLI

TYPE

DATE

EXTRAIT

CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:1992:1012DEC001889791

Admin. suprême

12 octobre 1992

12 octobre 1992

of the Attorney General's claim on the merits against these newspapers.

Page 75 sur 145

← PrécédentSuivant →
Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2023:0608JUD001832619

Admin. suprême

8 juin 2023

8 juin 2023

Firstly, it was stated that the vacancy announcement did not state that any type of the candidates’ merits was to be given preference and that it was for the Council to assess their merits, that it was

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2004:0831DEC005154399

Admin. suprême

31 août 2004

31 août 2004

The applicant’s son had his permanent residence in Toronto (Canada) but, at that time, was staying and had an   address in Slovakia as well.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0613JUD007763316

Admin. suprême

13 juin 2019

13 juin 2019

Accordingly, the court rejected the applicant’s request without examining the merits of the question of constitutionality raised by him.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2013:0718JUD005963209

Admin. suprême

18 juillet 2013

18 juillet 2013

In her reply, dated 26 February 2008, the investigator did not address the question of confrontation. 16.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0630JUD005851216

Admin. suprême

30 juin 2020

30 juin 2020

Merits Submissions by the parties 39.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0223JUD001482402

Admin. suprême

23 février 2010

23 février 2010

    Merits 70.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0607JUD000721106

Admin. suprême

7 juin 2016

7 juin 2016

In this situation, the Minister found that it was not necessary to address the question of whether internal relocation would be a possibility.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2007:0306DEC001325202

Admin. suprême

6 mars 2007

6 mars 2007

involvement of each of the participants in the group, tendentiously asserting that the police had targeted the Roma population when they were not influenced by the perpetrators’ ethnic affiliation, but merely

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2005:0222JUD003501497

Admin. suprême

22 février 2005

22 février 2005

    The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). 10.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0413JUD004596399

Admin. suprême

13 avril 2006

13 avril 2006

    Neither the applicant, nor the Government filed additional observations on the merits. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 9.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0329DEC000385314

Admin. suprême

29 mars 2016

29 mars 2016

Nevertheless, due to the prevailing attitudes in society persons could also be stigmatized by merely initiating criminal proceedings in respect of them.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2001:0607JUD003959498

Admin. suprême

7 juin 2001

7 juin 2001

  The Court heard addresses by them. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 11.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0707JUD007228710

Admin. suprême

7 juillet 2015

7 juillet 2015

It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (former Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) and to grant the case priority under Rules 41 and 61 § 2(

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2006:0308JUD005953200

Admin. suprême

8 mars 2006

8 mars 2006

    Both the applicant and the Government filed observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. 10.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2009:0320JUD001268603

Admin. suprême

20 mars 2009

20 mars 2009

    Merits 20.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:0513JUD001900904

Admin. suprême

13 mai 2008

13 mai 2008

    On 10 May 2005 the Chamber decided that the admissibility and merits of the case should be considered jointly (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 54A).

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2010:0722JUD001898402

Admin. suprême

22 juillet 2010

22 juillet 2010

    The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1002JUD000174802

Admin. suprême

2 octobre 2008

2 octobre 2008

Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 4.

Source officielle
CE

CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0225JUD002258115

Admin. suprême

25 février 2020

25 février 2020

Merits 45.     The Court summarised the principles of confinement in glass cabins in Yaroslav Belousov (cited above, §§ 120-22).

Source officielle